People do good because they are
human,
not because they are religious!

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

JESUS WAS AN APPARITION NOT A MAN

Please search for The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty on the WWW

Many think there was a man called Jesus who lived and died in the first century
and rose from the dead. Others think that all that was reported originally was
that some apparition of a man was being witnessed that claimed he had died and
risen in the distant past or perhaps a different world. If that happened, then
the writers of the New Testament fabricated the notion of a first century Jesus
who was more than just a vision.

PAUL AND HIS JESUS WHO HAD TO BE REVEALED

Paul strongly indicates that Jesus was not known as a man by anybody living in
his day.

Matthew 26:38 and Romans 8:10 make clear that sin makes the body weak, in fact,
dead. This is inconsistent with the notion that Jesus was a sinless but normal
man. Either Jesus was sinful. Or he was not a man in the normal sense. Paul
unlike Matthew might have denied that Jesus ever lived a normal life in the
first century.

1 Corinthians 12, Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for
the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom,
to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith
by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another
miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between
spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another
the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same
Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

The Christians say the underlined words mean the kind of faith that is
considered fanatical and mad by the world. Some claim to exercise that faith
today. They say they have the gift of knowing that God will cure their terminal
cancer so they refuse to get help. Or they may let their baby suffer as they
wait for God to intervene. Hebrews 11 approves of biblical "saints" who gave
examples of that faith, "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as
a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and
only son, even though God had said to him, It is through Isaac that your
offspring will be reckoned. Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead,
and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death." That shows
the danger of Pentecostalism and the Catholic Charismatic Movement which claim
that the 1 Corinthian 12 gifts of the Spirit are with us today.

But does Paul really mean extreme faith? He only said faith. He gave no hint of
meaning that. He holds that the Church is for believers. Yet he says some will
receive the gift of faith. What he means is believers depend on the apostles to
tell them about Jesus. They have no evidence that the apostles are telling the
truth. But some are given evidence that the faith is true and they have special
faith. So Jesus must be appearing to them or speaking to them from Heaven. That
is why that kind of faith is described as a supernatural gift of the Spirit. So
there was no other kind of evidence for there is only one kind of "special"
faith.

When he told the people of Corinth about the Lord's supper in which Jesus called
bread his body and a cup the covenant in his blood he said that he received this
practice from the Lord. This could be read as Jesus telling him about the ritual
in a vision. Though the context is about people meeting together for the supper
and excluding people they don't like, he does not mention who was at the supper
or anything. He does not know. Yet the gospels would have you believe the
apostles were present not many years before Paul wrote.

Paul speaks of a Jesus who lived long ago or one for whom there is no evidence
apart from spiritual experience that he lived.

VISIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

When all is said and done, all the New Testament has to offer as evidence for
Jesus is visions for what the gospels offer is not even fit to be called
evidence. Lots of people have visions that aren’t real so why should we heed the
ones that led to the Jesus legend?

The historical material of the gospels is really just myth. The earliest
Christian writings came from a man who depended entirely on visions implying
there was no history for Jesus. He had to combat heresy and the best way to do
that was to speak of what Jesus did and taught instead of appealing to
apparitions so he did not use the best way for it was not an option. When he
spoke of others seeing Jesus he did not say what they saw or how they saw it. It
could have been a strange light in the shape of a man or he could have been seen
in dreams.

That this writer, who was of course St Paul, depended on visions only is clear
from his 2 Corinthians 11 and 12. Chapter 11:6 says that Paul knows Christianity
and its basis thoroughly so he can refute the false Jesuses of the heretics and
show that his is the true one. And then he does it by accusing the heretics of
making money out of religion and by reminding Corinth about how much he suffered
for his Christ! This obviously proves he could not use history to do it. He was
annoyed that he had to use his life and suffering and visions as evidence for he
despised boasting (11:1; 12:1,6). Paul was desperate to counteract the
revelations of the false apostles and it was an urgent situation and yet he
never once used the Jesus story to do it. The two chapters prove that Jesus was
just a hallucination or vision beyond any doubt.

Ephesians 3 has Paul saying that the mystery of Jesus was made known to him by
direct revelation and was hidden from the people of the past but is now revealed
by the Holy Spirit to him and the apostles. The context is about the Church
being the dwelling place of God purified by the atonement of Jesus so that must
be the mystery (Ephesians 2:20-3:1). Most think it is the mystery of God
accepting Jew and Gentile alike. But that was not a mystery that was only
demystified by the apostles. Isaiah 56 explicitly says that God will accept Jews
and Gentiles as believers and as his people. And how could God accepting
differing races be a mystery? Accepting one is what I would call a mystery
because of the potential for racism. The saved Church mystery is closer in
context. So that is the one that is meant. The mystery is Jew and Gentile being
the dwelling of God and his Church. So the mystery is not about who is involved
but what happens when they get involved - they become a supernatural entity, a
Church, filled with the Holy Spirit. Ephesians refutes the gospel Jesus who has
the Church of the Holy Spirit created and preached about even before his death.
It even says the mystery is being revealed now through the apostles and when the
Luke account says it was not revealed this way or but long before this now the
gospellers are being proven to have fibbed quite a bit. If Jesus did not preach
the gospel of grace which was so basic until after his death then it follows
that the historical Jesus was an unknown person at best or a person who never
really existed or that people imagined visions and this led to belief in a man
called Jesus.

The liberal Christian belief that the gospels and early Christian teachings were
worked out by visions and revelations and the reflections of the Church long
after Jesus is certainly correct. They look at many of the parables of Jesus in
the Bible and they say that they are what the later Church said rather than what
Jesus really said. Here in an epistle, the apostles get the most basic
revelation of them all long after the resurrection visions. The most basic one
is that God lives in his Church and guides it and it took them decades to
discover it! Jesus did not found any Church in the Christian sense at all. The
resurrection of Jesus means nothing unless the Holy Spirit is in the witnesses
and they form his Church. The resurrection is supposed to be based on the word
of God not the word of man. Man needs to have the Holy Spirit so that his word
is the word of the Spirit and not his own creation. Christianity claims to
follow God not men and that is its most basic outlook.

Back to Ephesians. If Paul was saying that the mystery was the acceptance of Jew
and Gentile then clearly Jesus had never approached non-Jews and had never
commanded the apostles to take the gospel to every nation. Yet the gospels
contradict him on this. Who is lying then? Clearly it would be the gospels. Paul
speaks then as if he was the first to see that the Gentiles should be converted.
Then Jesus did not found a Catholic Church, that is a Church for all nations,
for if he had then that would have been clear from the beginning. If he founded
a Church it was not Catholic. So whether the mystery was that gentiles were
welcome in the Church or that the Church was supernatural or both then clearly
the Church was not Catholic.

The early Church thought it had the miracle power to speak in unknown languages
and prophecy. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 14 that the gift of tongues is for
converting those who do not accept Christianity as true and that the gift of
prophecy is for those who are already Christians. Yet he admitted this tongues
miracle was not very good for unbelievers would think that people doing it were
off their heads. When you have to use nearly useless miracles to get converts
that is a sign of desperation. It is also a sign that the early Church with its
apostles, who were the witnesses of Jesus, was indeed mad. Paul declared that
prophecy, reading the hearts of unbelievers, was a sign as well. But it was not
much of a sign for it was meant only for the believers. Fortune tellers found it
easy to make up stuff and be very accurate in those days for life was less
complicated then than now and even now they can still do well! The prophecy
sign is not impressive either. Paul would have known that too so his using it is
another sign of desperation for evidence.

Paul even denied that Jesus did miracles for if the earthly Jesus he had no
interest in had done them, Paul would not have used the charisms like speaking
in tongues and the other madcap activities of the Church as evidence of any kind
or value. He would have used the miracles of Jesus as far superior proofs. He
could do no better when he used such bad proofs as charisms. Paul stated in
Romans 5 that by faith in Jesus we are made righteous and we can boast that we
look forward to God’s glory and that this hope is not deceptive for God puts
love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. In other words, just because you live a
better life and believe these things it means that God is approving of your
belief. For this reasoning to be valid, Paul would need to accuse any religion
that claimed to do the same of lying. A man who depends on arrogance and
hate-mongering to get converts is a man who cannot get any evidence for what he
wants people to believe. His view is no better than the Mormon sects who believe
that God tells them that he is an exalted man and that he is Adam himself by
giving them a feeling.

Paul’s experience was completely based on visions. He was the earliest writer
and the early bird is the important one. He supersedes the gospels no matter if
they are plausible or not. He made his Church dependent on dubious miracles like
speaking in tongues which infers that Jesus did no miracles. He said that Jesus
rose from the dead for if he didn’t then the dead are lost forever and the faith
is useless. This stupid argument implies that he could think of nothing better
so his account that outlines Jesus’ appearance to the apostles must be an
interpolation or was not much use. The empty tomb was not mentioned. Paul had to
deal with a Church that had started to doubt the resurrection of any kind of
body physical or more ghostly and would have done better than that if he could.
Paul’s hallucinations or his claim to have visions (which might have been a lie)
started off belief in Jesus and led to the formation of the Christian Church.
When he could not prove that Jesus rose from the dead and stressed this heavenly
risen Jesus then is it likely that there was a Jesus at all? Of course not!

If there was better evidence for Jesus it is lost now and we have no reason to
think it ever existed. It is not surprising if some authorities assumed that
there was a historical Jesus. We know how gossip gets more unreliable by the
minute.

PAUL SAYS THERE IS ONLY VISIONARY EVIDENCE FOR JESUS

After going through a list of preachers among the Romans, Paul calls the gospel
“my gospel” when it would be more natural to say, “our gospel” (Romans 16:25).
So he is the origin of the gospel. He means it was revealed to him alone for he
says it was hid from endless ages. He could have said “gospel of the apostles”
or “gospel of the Lord” but he did not for he clearly meant the gospel started
with him for the other expressions would be better and reminders that it was the
gospel of God. That is the only reason why he could write so as to be
interpreted that way. If the gospel started with him then it did not start with
a historical Jesus and Jesus did not bother with gospelling when he was alive on
earth – an existence for which the only evidence was happened to be visions.

In Philippians 2 we have a piece of poetry that is undoubtedly and universally
considered to be one of the earliest creeds of the Church. It would have been
recited or used as a hymn in Paul’s Churches. It tells us that though the
Messiah Jesus was in the form of God, he did not cling to the idea of being
equal with God but emptied himself to become a servant born in human likeness.
He humbled himself and obeyed God even unto death on a cross and God raised him
high and gave him the name which is above all names so that everybody in heaven
and earth would bow at the name of Jesus. Christians say that the name which is
above all names is full authority, name standing for authority like we would say
somebody doing something in your name is claiming your authority. But if Jesus
were God or even the supreme angel he would have this authority even if he
didn’t use it so he could not be said to have been given the name after his
obedience unto death. The name thing refers to the name of Jesus, which means
saviour. The name of Jesus is the highest name there is because he saves
humankind and brings them back to God. God is no good to humanity without the
saviour who bears the punishment due to humanity so Jesus though not God but
like him bears the highest possible name and is in a real sense just as
important as God. So Jesus whoever he was WAS NOT NAMED JESUS UNTIL AFTER HE
DIED AND ROSE AGAIN. This completely destroys the credibility of the gospels
which have him called Jesus all along and say Joseph and Mary got him that name
during his circumcision in the Temple. It is obvious that when the word name is
mentioned and then we are told about an actual name that in this context the
name was not authority but an actual name.

Jesus was not like God all the time. He had to earn that prerogative by
obedience. The oldest saint could be the holiest for having had the earliest
start. The fact that God worked this way suggests that Jesus beat other holy men
to his level of holiness which indicates that he was the first real good man at
least at the time of his death. This in itself indicates that Jesus lived a long
time ago for there have been many men who seemed to be saints and who died for
others. Jesus did not save lives by his death but many martyrs before him
undoubtedly did. He was not the best saint for that reason. What Paul says fits
only a man who lived early on in the human race and who achieved such a high
exaltation by becoming the first saint with the others lagging behind.

God did not plan this Jesus thing for Jesus had no authority or dignity until he
obeyed though God can see the future so it was up to Jesus to become the saviour.
Any man then could have become the saviour.

PETER - DEVOTED TO JESUS THE APPARITION

The apostles deliberately produced their visions of Jesus because there was no
historical Jesus to learn from. If there had been, they would dwelt on his
memory and him rather than resort to dubious practices that they could have been
put to death for by the blasphemy hating Jews. And to claim to be apostles on
the basis of apparitions left the road open for rivals to do the same thing and
sow division and discord in the Church. This happened too. It was very serious.
The gospels are deceptively interpreted by crafty Christians as saying the
appearances of the risen Jesus were unexpected but they never say that. John
says that Peter did not understand that Jesus had to rise from the dead and we
read that he saw Jesus later. But Peter could have expected to see Jesus not as
a risen man but as a phantom. Or Peter could have started to understand later
and then had his vision. The same applies to the other visionaries who
supposedly had spontaneous visions of Christ.

That is the problem with Christian apologetics: they read stuff into the text
that is not there to make it look more convincing but it fails for it is just
speculation that is imposed on the text.

1 Peter 5:1 has the author being a witness of the
suffering of Christ. But Peter according to the gospel was not at the
crucifixion so Peter must be saying he saw the death in a vision.

The Second Letter of Peter recounts the transfiguration of Jesus and the writer
says he witnessed it and heard God saying Jesus was his son. Yet he said that
the word of the Old Testament was even more sure than this! He had reason to
believe that he had had an illusion albeit a possibly divinely inspired
illusion. When what he hinted was a doubtful miracle was all he could present as
evidence for Jesus it shows that there was nothing. And this coming from a
tradition of Peter the rock Jesus supposedly built his Church on! When he thinks
the Old Testament is the sole source of reliable truth he is against the
production of any gospels and stresses that we must listen to this word of God
until the new dawn of resurrection morn comes (2 Peter 1:19). The early Church
thought that post-resurrection visions and the empty tomb of Jesus were not
important reasons to believe in Jesus compared to the Old Testament saying Jesus
would rise from the dead. Second Peter thought so little of empty tombs and
rising bodies that he eliminated the evidence for a physical resurrection.

Second Peter states that the apostles did not give out cleverly devised myths
when they revealed to the world the power and the coming of the Lord Jesus but
were eyewitnesses to a visionary event, the transfiguration, that revealed the
majesty of Jesus (1:16). In other words, a vision verified the power and coming
of Jesus. It doesn't hint that it means the second coming of Christ. It just
says coming. The vision he recounts said nothing or indicated nothing about a
second coming. Second Peter is plainly saying that Jesus' power and coming had
to be revealed to the apostles in a vision. He was not heard of before. This
supports the idea that there was no Jesus known of until some people claimed to
be having visions of this being who claimed to have been crucified and died and
rose again.

Conclusion

The earliest Christians believed Jesus lived in another world or another time.
He only appeared in the first century. If so, it is not likely he existed. Lots
of apparitions are reported of people who don’t exist anymore so why should we
think his appearances mean he existed?

There were many indications from Jesus’ own recognised followers and the Church
leaders and from people outside the Church that it was thought apparitions led
to faith in Jesus and started the whole Christian movement off. Jesus was an
apparition, he never existed. The gospels are lies.